Unapproved Cache

[+kdbstlrfan]

I recently placed a cache and it has been deemed inappropriate and not approved. Just wanted your opinion on this cache. It is located near a Rail Road track but it is located in a park built and owned by the city it is in. The park is separated from the RR tracks by a fence. The cache in no way makes people go on to RR property. The reviewer feels I need written permission from the RR company before it can be published.

 

The cache container is actually magnetically attached to the back of a park bench.

 

Here is a picture.

 

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

[+Caching Scout]

I would post this picture the cache page/e-mail it to your reviewer and he might reconsider. But he could be concerned from the whole aspect of bomb by railroad tracks.

[+StarBrand]

Did the reviewer see that photo? Did you clearly point out where in the photo the cache is?

 

Looks ok to me but I see why I reviewer would err on the side of caution given the potential trouble from a RR.

 

BTW - caches are not really "approved" - they are "reviewed" to make certain they fit into the guidelines and are then published.

[+kdbstlrfan]

Yes, the reviewer saw a picture with the cache location marked with a red dot.

 

If the bomb theory is the worry, then there allot of caches that should be archived due to safety. There are thousands of caches in more strategic locations than this one.

[+StarBrand]

City built or not - it looks awful close to the RR and is likely within the RR tracks ROW.

 

If you really want it there - get direct permission from the enity that owns/built the park. Make sure they note who owns the land.

[+TotemLake]

Yes, the reviewer saw a picture with the cache location marked with a red dot.

 

If the bomb theory is the worry, then there allot of caches that should be archived due to safety. There are thousands of caches in more strategic locations than this one.

Gotta love statements like this.

 

Assuming you read the guidelines to hide the cache, then you agreed to the following statement:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is.

 

In effect, your cache needs to stand on its own merits within the current guidelines and not that of other similarly listed caches. Instead of getting defensive and all pointy at other caches, read the advise provided by those whom have experience working with reviewers to list caches.

 

Ideally, turn it into a waypoint for a multicache.

Edited September 19, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Renegade Knight]

I recently placed a cache and it has been deemed inappropriate and not approved. Just wanted your opinion on this cache. It is located near a Rail Road track but it is located in a park built and owned by the city it is in. The park is separated from the RR tracks by a fence. The cache in no way makes people go on to RR property. The reviewer feels I need written permission from the RR company before it can be published. ...

 

The RR guidelines is because RR companies have perhaps the most strict policies about folks being on their ROW. The park should be OK but if I had to bet I'd bet that the park is build on RR Row with an easement. However it could have been purchased outright. If outright normal park rules apply. If an easment the terms of the easmenet would come into play. There is a fair chance that normal park rules apply.

 

I don't know what your reviewer knows and that my be helpful in this case.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If the bomb theory is the worry, then there allot of caches that should be archived due to safety. There are thousands of caches in more strategic locations than this one.

 

Caches are harmless. Caching is a fun family activity. Reporting something that's harmless as something that's not does not change the caching is a fun family acitivty to find harmless caches.

 

Never, ever give the folks who would ban family friendly activities and other things we do in daily life an inch when they use the "we don't want to waste our times on false alarms" to ban these things. False alarms are nothing more than a side effect of having a bomb squad and encouraging Joe Public to phone in anything that they think looks funny.

[Skippermark]

I know of a cache that was located at a restaurant, 75 feet from active RR tracks, attached to the building and placed with permission of the owner.

 

Unfortunately, the coords were bad (about 100 feet off) and brought everyone to the opposite side of the tracks, making folks cross an active RR track unnecessarily. The cache was brought to the reviewers attention, and he archived it.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but I would imagine GC implemented this guideline for this very purpose, so that there's no chance people wander into an area they shouldn't be, and your reviewer is choosing to err on the side of safety.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Unfortunately, the coords were bad (about 100 feet off) and brought everyone to the opposite side of the tracks, making folks cross an active RR track unnecessarily. The cache was brought to the reviewers

attention, and he archived it...

 

Coords can be fixed. The cache was fine with the fix. Strange how it's not.

[+whistler & co.]

It looks as if there is more of the park behind where you were standing as you took the picture. Could you move the cache a bit farther from the tracks? Just because the park is next to the RR does not mean the entire park is off limits. It's the proximity to the tracks that has given the cache reviewer pause. A nano could easily be used on that black fence at the farthest point you can get from the RR but still within the confines of the park.

 

(Unless that's an aluminum fence, but it looks like iron.)

 

I forgot to add: add to your cache description in bold type that there is no need to go near the RR tracks to access the cache. That might help.

Edited September 19, 2008 by whistler & co.

[+Prime Suspect]

I forgot to add: add to your cache description in bold type that there is no need to go near the RR tracks to access the cache. That might help.

If you think you might need to add a warning to your cache page, the cache probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

[+Kit Fox]

Yes, the reviewer saw a picture with the cache location marked with a red dot.

 

If the bomb theory is the worry, then there allot of caches that should be archived due to safety. There are thousands of caches in more strategic locations than this one.

 

Out of curiosity, what is so special about that park bench (in full view of a house) that you need to place a geocache there?

 

I've had one cache placed even closer to an active R/R track, but it was placed on a bike trail that had a continuous fence preventing any cachers from approaching the tracks. In the case of your park bench hide, there is access to the tracks within 30 or 40 feet. This might be one of the reasons for the cache denial.

[+johnling]

I forgot to add: add to your cache description in bold type that there is no need to go near the RR tracks to access the cache. That might help.

If you think you might need to add a warning to your cache page, the cache probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

This is KEY! There are many caches in my area just as close to RR property but they do say, "No need to access RR property".

 

Not to mention there are two Benchmarks within several feet of RR property.

[+Renegade Knight]

I forgot to add: add to your cache description in bold type that there is no need to go near the RR tracks to access the cache. That might help.

If you think you might need to add a warning to your cache page, the cache probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

This is KEY! There are many caches in my area just as close to RR property but they do say, "No need to access RR property".

 

Not to mention there are two Benchmarks within several feet of RR property.

 

It's not key. It's smoke. Cache finders should be just as able to stay out of trouble seeking caches as they do with the rest of their life. Park visitors manage to enjoy the park and not picnic on the tracks.

[+kdbstlrfan]

The reviewers reason for not publishing the cache was "Federal Law prohibits me from publishing this cache. I will not be a party to knowingly breaking Federal Law." Since this is a park obviously designed for people to be there, what is the issue with publishing it?

 

The reason for the cache is because I want to place one there. It is a new park in an area being revitalized by the city.

 

The reviewer did not ask for any additional description. He simply stated that the cache needed to be moved or not be published.

 

For those that have thought or said anything about the guidelines not being read. I have read the guidelines. I am aware that previous published caches are not a precedent. The guidelines are just that, guidelines, to be used as a guide on a case by case basis.

 

As for my comment about caches needing archived, it is true, there are many that go directly against the guidelines and are a greater safety risk than a cache on a park bench in a public park.

 

I will remove the cache and not seek to have it published because apparently Groundspeak is an organization that is not as flexible as it claims to be.

 

Thanks for all your input.

[+MountainRacer]

I'd just let it go. It's a micro in a small park next to railroad tracks, more or less just for the sake of placing a cache there. Definitely not worth tangling with a reviewer over. Your efforts would be much better spent finding a new spot.

[+markandsandy]

The reviewers reason for not publishing the cache was "Federal Law prohibits me from publishing this cache...

 

The reviewer did not ask for any additional description...

 

 

Did you ask the reviewer for any additional information, such as what it was about this cache that violated Federal Law?

 

 

... I have read the guidelines...

 

...apparently Groundspeak is an organization that is not as flexible as it claims to be.

 

 

Have you actually tested Groundspeaks flexibility?

 

From those guidelines:

 

Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an e-mail with complete details, waypoint name (GC****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Too close, in my opinion. With my little yellow etrex, who knows where I'd end up? And I'm not too bright, you know....

 

Seriously, I guess it all needs to be desitgned to the "lowest common denominator." Better safe than sorry.

[+whistler & co.]

I forgot to add: add to your cache description in bold type that there is no need to go near the RR tracks to access the cache. That might help.

If you think you might need to add a warning to your cache page, the cache probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

This example happens to involve a RR, but we have used warnings in our cache descriptions to tell people things like "This cache is not in or on the stone wall" or "Do not attempt to access this cache from above--it is only accessible from below" or "Do not climb on the tank--your feet will be firmly on the ground when you locate the cache". Common sense should tell people in many cases what not to do, and caches in parks, cemeteries, or the like are generally acceptable...it is just courtesy to warn cachers of what they need not do. This protects the cache setting from unnecessary damage, keeps cachers out of areas that are potentially hazardous or sensitive, and prevents the non-caching public from complaining (we hope!).

[+TotemLake]

... because apparently Groundspeak is an organization that is not as flexible as it claims to be.

 

Sour grapes weren't needed to be added. Just because they didn't flex with your request doesn't make them not flexible. The fact of the matter is whether you like it or not, No is an answer. New hiders always run into this when trying to stretch the envelope just a little too much.

 

Rethink your hide. See about making the park a waypoint for a mulit. Instead of picking up your ball and going home because they didn't want to play the way you wanted to play, get creative!

[+TotemLake]

I forgot to add: add to your cache description in bold type that there is no need to go near the RR tracks to access the cache. That might help.

If you think you might need to add a warning to your cache page, the cache probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

This example happens to involve a RR, but we have used warnings in our cache descriptions to tell people things like "This cache is not in or on the stone wall" or "Do not attempt to access this cache from above--it is only accessible from below" or "Do not climb on the tank--your feet will be firmly on the ground when you locate the cache". Common sense should tell people in many cases what not to do, and caches in parks, cemeteries, or the like are generally acceptable...it is just courtesy to warn cachers of what they need not do. This protects the cache setting from unnecessary damage, keeps cachers out of areas that are potentially hazardous or sensitive, and prevents the non-caching public from complaining (we hope!).

Yah you'd think common sense would come into play. Just this past week we've had:

1) An individual stopped and light a cigarette too close to the tracks while a train was bearing down on him. He saw it and didn't move out of the way. He's got a train rash where the train scraped him while ripping his clothes off of him.

 

2)Another individual decided during a picture being taken of him while a train was passing by it would be even better if he stepped inside the gate blocking passage. He too ended up injured.

 

Common sense ain't so common around trains.

Edited September 19, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Tequila]

Sounds like WA needs to increase the size of the gene pool.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Tequila

[+infiniteMPG]

Sour grapes weren't needed to be added. Just because they didn't flex with your request doesn't make them not flexible. The fact of the matter is whether you like it or not, No is an answer. New hiders always run into this when trying to stretch the envelope just a little too much.

Been down that road a few times myself. Learned that it's best if a spot is firmly denied you can plea your case, but if it's shot down then just move on. The reviewers are volunteers and when you push the point too much or without tact, you find yourself kicking dirt on the umpire's shoes.... you ain't gonna win that fight... or maybe the next few either

 

Rethink your hide. See about making the park a waypoint for a mulit. Instead of picking up your ball and going home because they didn't want to play the way you wanted to play, get creative!

We have some places down here that flat out won't allow a geocache to exist but they're great places. So we do a multi and tour the people around having them collect data in the place (count benches, count trees, count how many statues are blah-blah-blah, etc) and that gets them the coords for the final which is just outside the boundaries. Nothing at all hidden in the place and people have a blast running around. Have an 11 part multi touring John & Mable's Ringling Gardens near the Ringling Museum and it takes cachers on a complete (and free) tour of the gardens.

 

I totally agree, if exploration is the father of geocaching, creativity is it's mother.

[+TotemLake]

Sounds like WA needs to increase the size of the gene pool.

Quite the opposite. These two incidents were in two different states. Unfortunately, without taking suicides into consideration, this happens nation wide from walking on tracks to racing the train to stopping on the tracks at a light. Big moving object against puny little human... I'm thinking the gene pool needs to be thinned out a bit but that's just me.

[+kdbstlrfan]

 

Sour grapes weren't needed to be added. Just because they didn't flex with your request doesn't make them not flexible. The fact of the matter is whether you like it or not, No is an answer. New hiders always run into this when trying to stretch the envelope just a little too much.

 

 

This isn't sour grapes. I stated my opinion. If it differs from yours it does not mean mine is wrong or "sour". I don't apologize for stepping on toes. If you are in a position to have your toes stepped on, wear steel toed shoes.

[+infiniteMPG]

Quite the opposite. These two incidents were in two different states. Unfortunately, without taking suicides into consideration, this happens nation wide from walking on tracks to racing the train to stopping on the tracks at a light. Big moving object against puny little human... I'm thinking the gene pool needs to be thinned out a bit but that's just me.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

[+Rockin Roddy]

The reviewers reason for not publishing the cache was "Federal Law prohibits me from publishing this cache. I will not be a party to knowingly breaking Federal Law." Since this is a park obviously designed for people to be there, what is the issue with publishing it?

 

The reason for the cache is because I want to place one there. It is a new park in an area being revitalized by the city.

 

The reviewer did not ask for any additional description. He simply stated that the cache needed to be moved or not be published.

 

For those that have thought or said anything about the guidelines not being read. I have read the guidelines. I am aware that previous published caches are not a precedent. The guidelines are just that, guidelines, to be used as a guide on a case by case basis.

 

As for my comment about caches needing archived, it is true, there are many that go directly against the guidelines and are a greater safety risk than a cache on a park bench in a public park.

 

I will remove the cache and not seek to have it published because apparently Groundspeak is an organization that is not as flexible as it claims to be.

 

Thanks for all your input.

 

 

[+Prime Suspect]

I forgot to add: add to your cache description in bold type that there is no need to go near the RR tracks to access the cache. That might help.

If you think you might need to add a warning to your cache page, the cache probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

This is KEY! There are many caches in my area just as close to RR property but they do say, "No need to access RR property".

 

Not to mention there are two Benchmarks within several feet of RR property.

 

It's not key. It's smoke. Cache finders should be just as able to stay out of trouble seeking caches as they do with the rest of their life. Park visitors manage to enjoy the park and not picnic on the tracks.

 

Then their should be no problem submitting it to picnicing.com. Unfortunately, this is geocaching.com, which involves people using less-than-perfectly-accurate devices to find things, not picnicing.

[+Criminal]

The cache container is actually magnetically attached to the back of a park bench.

 

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

Another pointless nano won't get to see the light of day, that's a shame.

 

JMO

[Clan Riffster]

Fan, do you want your cache to be published right where you originally hid it, or would you rather pout?

If getting your cache published matters, there are a few steps you can take to make this happen:

 

1 ) Communicate with the reviewer who nuked this idea. Send them an E-mail through their account, and include the GC # of your cache. In your E-mail, explain that the posted coords are not on Federal property, and as such, a hide there would not violate Federal law. The maps they use to determine property management are not updated on a daily basis, and it is quite possible that their map shows the location as belonging to the rail road. Maybe?

 

2 ) Go to the property appraiser's website for that county. Prove though their data who owns that property.

 

3 ) If you have a county/city park website, link to that, so they can see it really is a park.

 

4 ) Include bunches of photos showing the park entrance, the general layout, the orientation of the tracks as related to your hide.

 

5 ) If Google Earth has updated the location to include the park, include a "snapshot" view.

 

6 ) If all else fails, E-mail your case directly to Groundspeak.

[+kdbstlrfan]

Fan, do you want your cache to be published right where you originally hid it, or would you rather pout?

If getting your cache published matters, there are a few steps you can take to make this happen:

 

1 ) Communicate with the reviewer who nuked this idea. Send them an E-mail through their account, and include the GC # of your cache. In your E-mail, explain that the posted coords are not on Federal property, and as such, a hide there would not violate Federal law. The maps they use to determine property management are not updated on a daily basis, and it is quite possible that their map shows the location as belonging to the rail road. Maybe?

 

2 ) Go to the property appraiser's website for that county. Prove though their data who owns that property.

 

3 ) If you have a county/city park website, link to that, so they can see it really is a park.

 

4 ) Include bunches of photos showing the park entrance, the general layout, the orientation of the tracks as related to your hide.

 

5 ) If Google Earth has updated the location to include the park, include a "snapshot" view.

 

6 ) If all else fails, E-mail your case directly to Groundspeak.

 

Wow Clan, I am so glad you are here to direct me in the ways of cache approval. If it weren't for you, I would simply be pouting my life away.

 

As per the GC Guidelines, this post is here to get peoples opinion about a cache. I didn't pout, I didn't cry. I simply stated my case and posted the thread.

 

I may not have thousands of finds or hundreds of hides but I did graduate from high school and can read. To think I haven't e-mailed the reviewer and sent pics and done everything else I could do to get the cache approved is imbecilic.

 

Please don't come on here and try to prove how much more you know than anyone else. You will only show that you are lost.

[+Bad_CRC]

you could probably attach the nano right to the railroad track.

 

just put a 5 difficulty on it and put the hint as:

 

Jngpu sbe genvaf

 

[+BCandMsKitty]

Fan, do you want your cache to be published right where you originally hid it, or would you rather pout?

If getting your cache published matters, there are a few steps you can take to make this happen:

 

1 ) Communicate with the reviewer who nuked this idea. Send them an E-mail through their account, and include the GC # of your cache. In your E-mail, explain that the posted coords are not on Federal property, and as such, a hide there would not violate Federal law. The maps they use to determine property management are not updated on a daily basis, and it is quite possible that their map shows the location as belonging to the rail road. Maybe?

 

2 ) Go to the property appraiser's website for that county. Prove though their data who owns that property.

 

3 ) If you have a county/city park website, link to that, so they can see it really is a park.

 

4 ) Include bunches of photos showing the park entrance, the general layout, the orientation of the tracks as related to your hide.

 

5 ) If Google Earth has updated the location to include the park, include a "snapshot" view.

 

6 ) If all else fails, E-mail your case directly to Groundspeak.

 

Wow Clan, I am so glad you are here to direct me in the ways of cache approval. If it weren't for you, I would simply be pouting my life away.

 

As per the GC Guidelines, this post is here to get peoples opinion about a cache. I didn't pout, I didn't cry. I simply stated my case and posted the thread.

 

I may not have thousands of finds or hundreds of hides but I did graduate from high school and can read. To think I haven't e-mailed the reviewer and sent pics and done everything else I could do to get the cache approved is imbecilic.

 

Please don't come on here and try to prove how much more you know than anyone else. You will only show that you are lost.

 

Attitude, huh?

 

OK then, if all you want is a yes, or no, then ..

 

No ... IMHO, it is too close to the tracks.

[Mr.Yuck]

Fan, do you want your cache to be published right where you originally hid it, or would you rather pout?

If getting your cache published matters, there are a few steps you can take to make this happen:

 

1 ) Communicate with the reviewer who nuked this idea. Send them an E-mail through their account, and include the GC # of your cache. In your E-mail, explain that the posted coords are not on Federal property, and as such, a hide there would not violate Federal law. The maps they use to determine property management are not updated on a daily basis, and it is quite possible that their map shows the location as belonging to the rail road. Maybe?

 

2 ) Go to the property appraiser's website for that county. Prove though their data who owns that property.

 

3 ) If you have a county/city park website, link to that, so they can see it really is a park.

 

4 ) Include bunches of photos showing the park entrance, the general layout, the orientation of the tracks as related to your hide.

 

5 ) If Google Earth has updated the location to include the park, include a "snapshot" view.

 

6 ) If all else fails, E-mail your case directly to Groundspeak.

 

Wow Clan, I am so glad you are here to direct me in the ways of cache approval. If it weren't for you, I would simply be pouting my life away.

 

As per the GC Guidelines, this post is here to get peoples opinion about a cache. I didn't pout, I didn't cry. I simply stated my case and posted the thread.

 

I may not have thousands of finds or hundreds of hides but I did graduate from high school and can read. To think I haven't e-mailed the reviewer and sent pics and done everything else I could do to get the cache approved is imbecilic.

 

Please don't come on here and try to prove how much more you know than anyone else. You will only show that you are lost.

 

Now that's not very nice, is it? There is actually some great advice from CR there, but you focused all your effort on one sentence. You just need to pick up your keyholder or nano, or whatever it is, and move on. The proper channel anytime you dispute a reviewers decision is to send an email to appeals@geocaching.com

[+Star*Hopper]

OP: "I know of a cache that was located at a restaurant, 75 feet from active RR tracks, ..."

 

Coords can be fixed. The cache was fine with the fix. Strange how it's not.

 

"In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different." ~Guidelines

 

Fine, how?

Strange, how?

 

~*

[Clan Riffster]

OK, disregard. Somehow, the world will have to live with the lack of one more uninspired urban micro.

Please continue your regularly scheduled pout.

[+blb9556]

What size and container is it? If it is a nano then you should be fine.

[+Snake & Rooster]

Why are you even making a big deal about this? You submitted a cache. When you did so, you checked the box that said you read and understood the guidelines. The guidelines say that you cannot place a cache within 150 feet of a railroad. So I am left wondering why you even submitted such a cache. Surely you didn't think it would be approved?

 

Since it was not in compliance with the guidelines, it was not approved, and now you bring it to the forums to try and gather support for a cache that you know was improperly placed. Is that park bench really so special that you cannot simply move the cache someplace that acutally meets the guidelines?

 

Just wondering.

[+BadAndy]

Your problem is neither with the location or lack of permission. It's a combination of your avatar and username. Steeler fans justifiably come under much more intense scrutiny when it comes to cache placements.

 

Try changing your avatar to a big blue star and switch your moniker to something like "Da Boyz"and you'll have less problems getting them approved.

[Keystone]

This moderator from Pittsburgh is here to say: insulting people who are trying to help you is a surefire way to get your thread closed. Check out the forum guidelines before posting in the forums and the listing guidelines before submitting a cache less than 150 feet from active railroad tracks.